【摘要】 目的探讨氨苄西林舒巴坦(SAM)、哌拉西林他唑巴坦(TZP)对大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌的药物敏感试验及散点图分析。方法 2012―2015年分离的1 311株大肠埃希菌和898株肺炎克雷伯菌进行SAM与TZP的药敏分析,并使用散点图探讨2种抗菌药物之间的关系。结果 SAM对产超广谱β内酰胺酶(ESBLs)(+)菌株耐药率高于ESBLs(-)菌株,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),TZP对ESBLs(-)/(+)菌株的耐药率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);SAM与TZP耐药性比较,针对ESBLs(-)/(+)大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌,SAM耐药性均明显高于TZP,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);散点图显示,SAM和TZP在ESBLs(+)肺炎克雷伯菌菌株中交叉耐药率最高(2.9%),在ESBLs(-)肺炎克雷伯菌菌株中交叉敏感率最高(81.2%)。结论 SAM不宜作为大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌ESBLs(+)菌株感染治疗的备选药物,TZP可作为治疗大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌感染的备选抗菌药物。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To explore the drug sensitivity of ampicillin sulbatam(SAM),pipericillin,and piperacillin tazobactam(TZP)for two kinds of bacillus-escherichia coli(eco)and klebsiella pneumoniae(KPN).Methods The drug sensitivity analysis of 1311 strains of eco and 898 strains of KPN isolated from 2012 to 2015and the relationship between SAM and TZP was analyzed by using the WHONET 5.6software.Results The resistance rate of ESBLs(+)was higher than that of ESBLs to SAM,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The difference between ESBLs(―)/(+)and TZP was not statistically significant.The comparison of SAM and TZP drug resistance,both eco and KPN of ESBLs(―)/(+),SAM resistance was significantly higher than that of TZP,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).From the scatter diagram of view,SAM and TZP in the ESBLs(+)KPN strain on the highest cross resistance rate of 2.9%,in the ESBLs(-)KPN strain on the highest cross sensitivity rate of 81.2%.Conclusion The SAM should not be used as a clinical experience treatment for the ESBLs(+)strain.But TZP could be done as a clinical experience in the treatment of infection related to alternative antibiotics.更多还原